OMAHA, Neb. – It may seem simple to say that a Nebraska State trooper speeding through traffic to catch up with another vehicle is chasing that vehicle, but the state's lawyers say it's not that clear-cut.
Lawyers for the state and a Nebraska woman injured in a crash will get a chance Wednesday to persuade the Nebraska Supreme Court to adopt their definition of a police chase.
The high court's decision will dictate whether the state is responsible for the 2006 crash that caused debilitating injuries to Kimberly Cotton. At issue is the interpretation of a law that says the state is strictly liable when the actions of a pursuing law enforcement officer cause injury or death.
Cotton was hurt when the man being sought by State Trooper Kent Kavan lost control of the stolen car he was driving and hit a pickup truck, forcing it to collide with Cotton's car on Highway 50 near Springfield.
Sarpy County District Judge David Arterburn ruled early this year the state wasn't liable because the trooper didn't intend to arrest Aaron Anson when he pursued him on March 8, 2006. Instead, Kavan said he was only pursuing Anson to investigate further and confirm the Ford Mustang Anson was driving was stolen.
Arterburn ruled that Kavan's pursuit of Anson to check the license plate number of the car didn't qualify as a pursuit, partly because before the accident Kavan never turned on the lights or siren of the State Patrol truck he was driving.
And at the time of the crash, Anson was under the influence of methamphetamine and his memory of that day is unclear, according to court records. So Arterburn didn't give as much weight to Anson's testimony about when the chase began.
Cotton's lawyer, Michael Dowd, said he thinks Arterburn misinterpreted the state law on chases when he ruled that a chase to investigate is different than a chase to apprehend, so Cotton appealed to the high court.
"I don't think there is a difference between the two, and I hope the court agrees," Dowd said.
The state's attorney, Robert Keith, declined to comment because the case is still pending, but in court documents, he said the evidence in this case shows that Kavan's decision to follow Anson before the accident wasn't a chase.
"The Legislature never intended for a pursuit to be initiated under the pursuit statute every time an officer follows another vehicle to run its license plate or to perform some other investigative activity," Keith said.
On the day of the crash, Kavan was working as a State Patrol carrier enforcement officer upholding commercial vehicle rules and weighing trucks. But when Anson drove by, Kavan thought he recognized the Mustang Anson was driving as the one stolen from a Nebraska City dealership.
So Kavan pulled into traffic and tried to catch up to Anson, who began to accelerate away from Kavan at speeds close to 100 mph.
Kavan accelerated to roughly 80 mph as he pursued Anson, but he did not catch up to him before the crash that hurt Cotton.
After the crash, Anson was able to keep driving the Mustang, so he pulled back onto the roadway and fled.
Kavan turned on his emergency lights when he approached the accident, and when he saw Anson flee, he pursued him. The state argues that this is the point when the actual chase began.
Anson was arrested a couple hours later after he had ditched the stolen Mustang. He was convicted of fleeing to avoid arrest and spent 2 1/2 years in prison for his role in the crash.
___
Online:
Nebraska Judicial branch: http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov